Co-writers: 1. Lauren Talley 2. EmJ 3. Taylor 4. George Herring 5. Kelly
Critical Analysis
In the selection “Cohabitation Instead of Marriage”, James Q. Wilson insists that cohabitation is corrupting the institution of marriage and its influence in American society. He ascertains that Americans have found a way around the commitment of marriage by raising a child under the term "family" and not by his conservative definition. Wilson also defines the legal, financial, and cultural issues created by cohabitation, and their effects on the definition and purpose of marriage. James Q. Wilson ineffectively argues his claim against cohabitation through technical downfalls such as poor delivery of his work, non-credible sources without references, nor offers opposing views from someone living in cohabitation, as well as bringing his political bias into the work.
The recently deceased James Q. Wilson was a college professor and author/co-author of many pieces of writing aimed toward politics and government. Wilson's excerpt "Cohabitation instead of Marriage" from his book The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Damages Families (2002) is a step out from his other works such as Negro Politics(1960), American Politics, Then and Now(2010), Moral Judgment(1997), and Political Organizations(1973), which stress governmental affairs, crime and politics. In general, this specific work of Wilson's is directed towards persons approximately between the ages 20-30, or anyone considering marriage or cohabitation. The audience can also be viewed as anyone with a political opinion, since Wilson flaunts his throughout the article.
The title of Wilson's passage, "Cohabitation Instead of Marriage" is a contradiction of the actual article and misleading to the reader. Upon reading the title of the article, without any further knowledge of the passage's content, one would assume Wilson is pro-cohabitation rather than the latter. This tactic reflects poorly on his ability to form a proper argument by using deception to "trick" the reader. Like the title itself, most of Wilson's tactics are brute and straight forward, which can be seen as a negative attribute to his claim. One of these is his writing style, which provides for a weak argument with distracting syntactical errors. For example, he states, "Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve." (432). One can liken his writing style to a boxing match: In the final round, this is the start of his knockout punch for the win to convince the reader to agree with his point of view by exclusively stating his opinion, omitting supportive reasoning. The poor construction of the sentence also sidetracks the reader from its intention. Eliminating the section surrounded by commas, "and the sex that makes children possible," should not alter the flow or meaning of the sentence, but the time it takes to understand his point takes away from his argument. He then goes on to state that there are even problems in marriage today because people view the benefits have been overshadowed by "social arrangements" (432) that make marriage in itself pointless.
Wilson's voice and tone is very condescending on those who are residing in cohabitation. Through this strong yet unrelenting delivery Wilson fails to back up his claim that couples should marry rather than cohabitant.
By comparing an ideal family life to one of cohabitation, Wilson supports his theory that marriage is the only solution, yet gives little to no proof to support his evidence. Wilson’s stance on cohabitation is made abruptly clear within the first few sentences. He puts it in black and white with little speculation to feed off. It detracts from the text because he does not look at the two options objectively but pushes his opinion continually throughout the text.
He tries to draw on other sources but without citing, so the sources cannot be considered credible. The sources could be considered credible if an actual study or some factual statistics appear in the text, but when they do they are not cited. The only reference in the article does have an example using a brief snippet from Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. Waite and Gallagher state in the long run you'll be better off married because you know for sure someone loves you unconditionally and needs you for support and guidance. While this is used powerfully to support Wilson, it also hurt him unintentionally as well. He does not inform the reader who Waite and Gallagher are which makes this supporting claim less credible. If he states their credentials to the subject of marriage his argument could be more easily followed.
Wilson forces assumption on the reader by saying that for most people the family is a feeble foundation compared to past characterizations of family. This was worded offensively by the way he took a sample of a family used it to generalize an entire population. Not every family matches these cookie cutter guidelines of his idea of the modern family. In his closing argument Wilson expresses after the many vast changes of what a family consists of the one thing that has changed the least is our "ability to fashion a marriage that will make the union last even longer than the romance that inspired it" (432). This was a strong point to conclude the article to wrap up his stance and thesis. Although, he also has many strong points to support his opinion that, if one is against cohabitation, could be seen as a tool to effectively reach out to the reader these following points are not supported by any official study. A point Wilson shows is his definition of marriage and its statistical proven success, versus the results of cohabitation. He states that "love itself is helped by marriage" (430), and that people who cohabit have less motivation to keep their love alive. Wilson continues to articulate that cohabitation mostly ends within the first 24 months - either by a split or marriage. Wilson then goes into the cultural aspect of marriage, specifically making the point that "a family was a political, economic, and educational unit"(431). He continues to describe the family's role in the first cultures and the importance it placed and how these affiliations combined to form a community. He proclaims that the term of a family has advanced from the traditional unit and now focuses more on love. Wilson states that the ideas politically, economically, and educationally have not changed directly but the adaptation of the family indirectly devalues them and that family now focuses more on love and the raising of children. He also states that if two people are married they have more of an incentive to stay together because of costly divorce fees. Wilson never touches base about the negative some marriages can bring to a person, which becomes a downfall for his claim.
In addition to Wilson's lack of sufficient evidence to accurately exhibit his case, he fails to offer any counter arguments. He presents little evidence to back up the "studies" and "scholars" with actual references to other texts, which makes the passage, seem more like an opinion than a fact. The author assumes the reader knows every aspect of cohabitation, and that they share the same definition of marriage that he does. Wilson wants his reader to take a stand on this issue, and by "stand", he wants the reader to become pro-marriage. Wilson wants to turn the reader away from the thought that cohabitation should even be a relevant alternative to marriage, but the text fails to view the situation from someone living in cohabitation. It generalizes every situation of cohabitation, and does not provide an individual case study.
Though Wilson presents some, he fails to address enough ideas to effectively rule out the concept of cohabitation for the reader. He offers negative effects of cohabitation, such as keeping separate bank accounts and equally splitting up living expenses, which can cause conflict if one has more of an income then another. However, Wilson fails to give a definitive example of a positive effect that cohabitation results in. His argument could have been stronger had he gathered information opposing his view point to further educate the reader on both aspects of the subject.
Wilson's attempt to convince his audience that marriage as the only choice in a love relationship is exactly what makes his argument unconvincing and biased. A consequence of the argument Wilson makes is that he will most likely offend those who are in cohabitation by attacking it, rather than being objective about the issue. This may cause others readers to disregard his opinion. His poor delivery makes his arguments complicated and sometimes unidentifiable. The lack of supporting evidence and opposing views brings his claim to an unaccredited, opinionated article, rather than the convincing selection of text he meant for it to be. His entire proclamation directly states the implication of the thesis, and leaves the reader with unanswered questions about the future. When will cohabitation start to overtake the traditional idea of marriage? What in society will change in the future to persuade people to cohabit?
Work Cited
Wilson, James Q. “Cohabitation Instead of Marriage.” The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York: Harper Collins. (2002); 38-41. Rpt. in Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers, 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J.Kennedy. Boston; Pearson 2009. 340-46. Print.
1. Lauren Talley
2. EmJ
3. Taylor
4. George Herring
5. Kelly
Critical Analysis
In the selection “Cohabitation Instead of Marriage”, James Q. Wilson insists that cohabitation is corrupting the institution of marriage and its influence in American society. He ascertains that Americans have found a way around the commitment of marriage by raising a child under the term "family" and not by his conservative definition. Wilson also defines the legal, financial, and cultural issues created by cohabitation, and their effects on the definition and purpose of marriage. James Q. Wilson ineffectively argues his claim against cohabitation through technical downfalls such as poor delivery of his work, non-credible sources without references, nor offers opposing views from someone living in cohabitation, as well as bringing his political bias into the work.
The recently deceased James Q. Wilson was a college professor and author/co-author of many pieces of writing aimed toward politics and government. Wilson's excerpt "Cohabitation instead of Marriage" from his book The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Damages Families (2002) is a step out from his other works such as Negro Politics(1960), American Politics, Then and Now(2010), Moral Judgment(1997), and Political Organizations(1973), which stress governmental affairs, crime and politics. In general, this specific work of Wilson's is directed towards persons approximately between the ages 20-30, or anyone considering marriage or cohabitation. The audience can also be viewed as anyone with a political opinion, since Wilson flaunts his throughout the article.
The title of Wilson's passage, "Cohabitation Instead of Marriage" is a contradiction of the actual article and misleading to the reader. Upon reading the title of the article, without any further knowledge of the passage's content, one would assume Wilson is pro-cohabitation rather than the latter. This tactic reflects poorly on his ability to form a proper argument by using deception to "trick" the reader. Like the title itself, most of Wilson's tactics are brute and straight forward, which can be seen as a negative attribute to his claim. One of these is his writing style, which provides for a weak argument with distracting syntactical errors. For example, he states, "Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve." (432). One can liken his writing style to a boxing match: In the final round, this is the start of his knockout punch for the win to convince the reader to agree with his point of view by exclusively stating his opinion, omitting supportive reasoning. The poor construction of the sentence also sidetracks the reader from its intention. Eliminating the section surrounded by commas, "and the sex that makes children possible," should not alter the flow or meaning of the sentence, but the time it takes to understand his point takes away from his argument. He then goes on to state that there are even problems in marriage today because people view the benefits have been overshadowed by "social arrangements" (432) that make marriage in itself pointless.
Wilson's voice and tone is very condescending on those who are residing in cohabitation. Through this strong yet unrelenting delivery Wilson fails to back up his claim that couples should marry rather than cohabitant.
By comparing an ideal family life to one of cohabitation, Wilson supports his theory that marriage is the only solution, yet gives little to no proof to support his evidence. Wilson’s stance on cohabitation is made abruptly clear within the first few sentences. He puts it in black and white with little speculation to feed off. It detracts from the text because he does not look at the two options objectively but pushes his opinion continually throughout the text.
He tries to draw on other sources but without citing, so the sources cannot be considered credible. The sources could be considered credible if an actual study or some factual statistics appear in the text, but when they do they are not cited. The only reference in the article does have an example using a brief snippet from Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher. Waite and Gallagher state in the long run you'll be better off married because you know for sure someone loves you unconditionally and needs you for support and guidance. While this is used powerfully to support Wilson, it also hurt him unintentionally as well. He does not inform the reader who Waite and Gallagher are which makes this supporting claim less credible. If he states their credentials to the subject of marriage his argument could be more easily followed.
Wilson forces assumption on the reader by saying that for most people the family is a feeble foundation compared to past characterizations of family. This was worded offensively by the way he took a sample of a family used it to generalize an entire population. Not every family matches these cookie cutter guidelines of his idea of the modern family. In his closing argument Wilson expresses after the many vast changes of what a family consists of the one thing that has changed the least is our "ability to fashion a marriage that will make the union last even longer than the romance that inspired it" (432). This was a strong point to conclude the article to wrap up his stance and thesis.
Although, he also has many strong points to support his opinion that, if one is against cohabitation, could be seen as a tool to effectively reach out to the reader these following points are not supported by any official study. A point Wilson shows is his definition of marriage and its statistical proven success, versus the results of cohabitation. He states that "love itself is helped by marriage" (430), and that people who cohabit have less motivation to keep their love alive. Wilson continues to articulate that cohabitation mostly ends within the first 24 months - either by a split or marriage. Wilson then goes into the cultural aspect of marriage, specifically making the point that "a family was a political, economic, and educational unit"(431). He continues to describe the family's role in the first cultures and the importance it placed and how these affiliations combined to form a community. He proclaims that the term of a family has advanced from the traditional unit and now focuses more on love. Wilson states that the ideas politically, economically, and educationally have not changed directly but the adaptation of the family indirectly devalues them and that family now focuses more on love and the raising of children. He also states that if two people are married they have more of an incentive to stay together because of costly divorce fees. Wilson never touches base about the negative some marriages can bring to a person, which becomes a downfall for his claim.
In addition to Wilson's lack of sufficient evidence to accurately exhibit his case, he fails to offer any counter arguments. He presents little evidence to back up the "studies" and "scholars" with actual references to other texts, which makes the passage, seem more like an opinion than a fact. The author assumes the reader knows every aspect of cohabitation, and that they share the same definition of marriage that he does. Wilson wants his reader to take a stand on this issue, and by "stand", he wants the reader to become pro-marriage. Wilson wants to turn the reader away from the thought that cohabitation should even be a relevant alternative to marriage, but the text fails to view the situation from someone living in cohabitation. It generalizes every situation of cohabitation, and does not provide an individual case study.
Though Wilson presents some, he fails to address enough ideas to effectively rule out the concept of cohabitation for the reader. He offers negative effects of cohabitation, such as keeping separate bank accounts and equally splitting up living expenses, which can cause conflict if one has more of an income then another. However, Wilson fails to give a definitive example of a positive effect that cohabitation results in. His argument could have been stronger had he gathered information opposing his view point to further educate the reader on both aspects of the subject.
Wilson's attempt to convince his audience that marriage as the only choice in a love relationship is exactly what makes his argument unconvincing and biased. A consequence of the argument Wilson makes is that he will most likely offend those who are in cohabitation by attacking it, rather than being objective about the issue. This may cause others readers to disregard his opinion. His poor delivery makes his arguments complicated and sometimes unidentifiable. The lack of supporting evidence and opposing views brings his claim to an unaccredited, opinionated article, rather than the convincing selection of text he meant for it to be. His entire proclamation directly states the implication of the thesis, and leaves the reader with unanswered questions about the future. When will cohabitation start to overtake the traditional idea of marriage? What in society will change in the future to persuade people to cohabit?
Work Cited
Wilson, James Q. “Cohabitation Instead of Marriage.” The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. New York: Harper Collins. (2002); 38-41. Rpt. in Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers, 6th ed. Ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J.Kennedy. Boston; Pearson 2009. 340-46. Print.